VINOD KUMAR @ SHESHNATH Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 16.08.2013 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.76/13 arising out of FIR No.53/2013 by which the appellant Vinod Kumar @ Sheshnath was convicted under Section 10 & 12 of the POCSO Act read with Section 506 IPC. By an order dated 17.08.2013, he was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine Rs. 1,000/- under Section 10 POCSO Act; RI for one year with fine Rs. 500 under Section 12 POCSO Act; and, RI for one year under Section 506 IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on and before 2nd February, 2013 at H.No.8-21, Gali No.5, Tomar Colony, Burari, the appellant outraged modesty of his daughter 'X' (assumed name), aged around 15 years. She was sexually abused and criminally intimidated for about three years. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording 'X's statement (Ex.PW- 2/A) on 15.02.2013. She was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the court. The prosecution examined six witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 statement, denying his complicity in the crime, the appellant pleaded false implication by the prosecutrix under her mother's pressure with whom there was dispute over sale of plot at Burari. No evidence in defence, however, was produced. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Appellant's conviction is primarily based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Admitted position is that she is the appellant's daughter and lived along with him in the house in question. She was studying in Xth class and her date of birth recorded in the school at the time of admission proved by PW-3 (Firoz Ahmed) was 01.07.1997. The relevant copies are exhibited Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW-3/B. The appellant has not challenged 'X's date of birth. Apparently, she was minor at the time of lodging the FIR.